455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Tel 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865-4272 Fax 415-865-4205 www.courts.ca.gov

HON. TANI G . CANTIL -SAKAUYE Chief Justice of California Chair of the Judicial Council

HON. DOUGL AS P . MIL L ER Chair, Executive and Planning Committee

HON. DAVID M. RUBIN Chair, Judicial Branch Budget Committee Chair, Litigation Management Committee

HON. KENNETH K . SO Chair, Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee

HON. HARRY E . HULL , JR . Chair, Rules and Projects Committee

HON. MARSHA G. SL OUGH Chair, Technology Committee

Hon. Marla O. Anderson Hon. Richard Bloom Hon. C. Todd Bottke Hon. Stacy Boulware Eurie Hon. Kyle S. Brodie Hon. Ming W. Chin Hon. Jonathan B. Conklin Hon. Samuel K. Feng Hon. Scott M. Gordon Hon. Brad R. Hill Ms. Rachel W. Hill Hon. Harold W. Hopp Ms. Audra Ibarra Hon. Hannah-Beth Jackson Mr. Patrick M. Kelly Hon. Dalila C. Lyons Ms. Gretchen Nelson

A D V I S O R Y M E M B E R S Hon. Paul A. Bacigalupo Ms. Nancy CS Eberhardt Ms. Kimberly Flener Hon. Ann C. Moorman Hon. Gary Nadler Mr. Michael M. Roddy Ms. Andrea K. Wallin-Rohmann Hon. Rebecca L. Wightman

MR. MARTIN HOSHINO

Administrative Director, Judicial Council

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

Report Summary

Report title: The Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts:

Preliminary 2018 Update of the Judicial Needs Assessment

Statutory citation: Government Code section 69614(c)(1) & (3)

Date of report: November 1, 2018

The Judicial Council has submitted a report to the Legislature in

accordance with Government Code section 69614(c)(1) and (3), which

requires the council to provide an update every two years on the need for

new judgeships in the California superior courts and to report on the

conversion of certain subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions to

judgeships.

The following summary of the report is provided under Government

Code section 9795.

The Judicial Council finds that, consistent with previous reports, a

significant, critical need for new judgeships remains. A total of 127 new

judgeships are needed to meet the workload-based need in the trial courts,

with some courts having shortfalls as high as over 45 percent between

judicial positions needed and the number of filled and authorized

positions. An update to the judicial workload study is currently in

progress and will result in new caseweights and other model parameters

that will reflect current case processing practices. An interim update to

this 2018 report will be issued once the model has been updated.

The Judicial Council must also report on the conversion of SJO positions,

in excess of the maximum 16 per year, that result in judges being

assigned to family or juvenile assignments previously held by SJOs. No

additional conversions took place in this reporting period.

The full report can be accessed at www.courts.ca.gov/12922.htm.

A printed copy of the report may be obtained by calling 415-865-7693.

The Need for New

Judgeships in the

Superior Courts:

Preliminary 2018

Update of the

Judicial Needs

Assessment

REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE UNDER

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION

69614(C)(1) & (3)

NOVEMBER 2018

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

Hon. Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Chief Justice of California and

Chair of the Judicial Council

Martin Hoshino

Administrative Director,

Judicial Council

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

John Wordlaw

Chief Administrative Officer

BUDGET SERVICES

Zlatko Theodorovic

Director and Chief Financial Officer

Lucy Fogarty

Deputy Director

Leah Rose-Goodwin

Manager, Office of Court Research

Kristin Greenaway

Supervising Research Analyst, Office of Court Research

Khulan Erdenebaatar

Research Analyst, Office of Court Research

Primary Author of Report

1

Access to Justice Requires Having Sufficient Judicial Resources

Government Code section 69614(c)(1) requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature

and the Governor on or before November 1 of every even-numbered year on the need for new

judgeships in each superior court, using the uniform criteria for the allocation of judgeships

described in Government Code section 69614(b). Government Code section 69614(c)(3) requires

the Judicial Council to report on the status of the conversion of additional subordinate judicial

officer (SJO) positions to family or juvenile assignments.

The public’s right to timely access to justice is contingent on having adequate judicial resources

in every jurisdiction. The number of judgeships authorized and funded by the Legislature has not

kept pace with workload in all California trial courts, leaving some with serious shortfalls—as

high as 45 percent—between the number of judgeships needed and the number that have been

authorized and filled.

Securing resources to meet the workload-based need for new judgeships has been a top priority

for the Judicial Council for many years.

It should be noted that this report is based on data collected for the 2011 judicial workload study.

An update to the judicial workload study is currently in progress and will result in new

caseweights and other model parameters that will reflect current case processing practices.

Because of this, an interim update to this preliminary 2018 report will be issued in fall 2019 once

the study has been completed, the case weights have been approved, and the workload need for

judges can be computed on the basis of the updated weights and other model parameters.

Quantifying the Need for New Judgeships in the Superior Courts

California is a pioneer in the measurement of judicial workload-based need, having been the first

state to use a weighted caseload methodology to assess the need for judicial officers, beginning

in 1963.1 Since then, weighted caseload has become a nationally accepted methodology for

measuring judicial workload. The current methodology used to assess the need for judicial

officers in the superior courts is based on a time study conducted in 2010, in which over 500

judicial officers in 15 courts participated. The time study findings resulted in the development of

a set of caseweights that quantify the amount of case processing time needed for different case

types, taking into account the full range of possible case processing outcomes and their relative

probability of occurrence. The caseweights that resulted from the 2010 time study were approved

by the Judicial Council in December 2011.

The caseweights are used to estimate judicial officer need by multiplying each caseweight by a

three-year rolling average of filings for that case type and dividing by the available time in

minutes that judicial officers have to hear cases. The result is expressed in full-time equivalent

(FTE) judicial positions.

1 Harry O. Lawson and Barbara J. Gletne, Workload Measures in the Court (National Center for State Courts, 1980).

2

Judicial Workload Measures Must be Updated to Reflect Current Case

Processing Need

California continues to have a critical need for judges, particularly in the Inland Empire which

has shown a need for new judgeships for a sustained period of time. However, as previously

noted, the figures in this report may not accurately represent the current degree of judicial need

because the caseweights used in the current iteration of the judicial needs assessment are based

on data collected in 2010. Therefore, the caseweights may not reflect new judicial workload

resulting from legislative and other policy changes that have occurred since then. Some of the

issues identified by judicial officers that have affected judicial workload since 2010 include, but

are not limited to, the following:

• AB 109: criminal justice realignment (effective October 2011): judicial officers now have

probation oversight of certain offenders, resulting in increased hearings and supervision;

• Proposition 47 (effective November 2014): changes the weights of the felony and

misdemeanor workload; many jurisdictions have reported that changes in the law have

eliminated incentives to complete misdemeanor drug treatment programs. With fewer

people getting treatment, more are cycling rapidly through the system. A companion

issue reported is that more defendants have trailing cases or multiple cases.

• Increase in the number of identified mentally-ill offenders, use of diversion programs and

collaborative-type courts. While these measures improve outcomes, they require more

judicial supervision and court monitoring.

• Increased use of juvenile diversion programs which have resulted in lower filings, but

leave behind in the system the juveniles hardest to reach and who have committed the

most serious crimes.

• New protections for non-minor dependents, which have increased the number of

juveniles in the social services and court system (AB 12 and AB 212- effective 2012), as

well as more juveniles receiving court supervision under special immigrant juvenile

status (effective 2014, expanded 2015).

• Expanded use of court interpreters covering more casetypes, resulting in better outcomes

for litigants, but more time required in the courtroom.

Such changes may also impact the practices of the court’s justice partners, which can, in turn,

have unintended consequences for court workload. Although filings have been declining, the

workload associated with some types of filings has increased—due to, for example, the need to

hold more hearings, more complex cases coming before the court (e.g., increasing mental health

and substance abuse issues, larger numbers of defendants with multiple cases), or staff shortages

causing some workload to fall on judicial officers. On the other hand, judicial workload in other

areas not affected by such law and policy changes may have declined since 2010. The net impact

of workload increases vs. decreases is unknown and may vary by jurisdiction depending on each

court’s unique mix of cases.

3

2018 Statewide Judicial Need Shows a Critical Need for New

Judgeships

Consistent with reports submitted in previous years, the 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment shows

a shortage of judges relative to the workload needs in California’s trial courts. Table 1, which

summarizes the statewide judicial need compared to available resources based on a three-year

average of filings from fiscal years 2014–15 through 2016–17, shows that 1,929.9 FTE judicial

officers are needed statewide. Although the statewide assessed judicial need has been declining

in recent years, many courts, particularly in the Inland Empire, continue to experience chronic

judicial officer shortage (see Appendix A). In 2018, two highly impacted courts, San Bernardino

and Riverside Counties, received two judgeships each, which were reallocated from the superior

courts of Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.2 In addition, the Budget Act of 2018 gave the

Superior Court of the County of Riverside two newly funded judgeships.3 Despite these changes,

Riverside and San Bernardino courts continue to have a large unmet need for new judgeships.

Table 1 shows the total assessed statewide need for judicial officers has declined by 118.7, or

6 percent, since the 2016 Judicial Needs Assessment.

Table 1. Statewide Need for Judicial Officers, 2016 and 2018 Judicial Needs Assessments

Year Authorized Judicial

Positions (AJP)a

Authorized and Funded Judgeships

and Authorized SJO Positions

Assessed Judicial Need (AJN)

2016 2,010.1 1,960.1 2,048.6

2018b 2,004.1 1,956.1 1,929.9

Change (2016 to 2018) -6.0 -4.0 -118.7

a Includes the 48 judgeships that were authorized by AB 159 (Stats. 2007, ch. 722) but never funded or filled. AB 159 originally authorized 50 judgeships, but 2 were funded in 2018 and allocated to the Superior Court of Riverside County. See Stats. 2018, ch. 45, § 6.

b AJP changed since the last assessment because, in 2016–17, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County had 5 FTE SJO reductions. In addition, the 2018 assessment includes a correction in the number of authorized positions; the 2016 AJN assessment had reported only 3 of the 4 SJO reductions at the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.

2 Assem. Bill 103; Stats. 2017, ch. 17, § 22.

3 Stats. 2018, ch. 45, § 6. These two judgeships are part of the 50 unfunded judgeships authorized by AB 159

(Stats. 2007, ch. 722).

4

127 Judicial Officers Needed Statewide to Meet Workload Demand

Judicial need is calculated by taking the difference between the assessed judicial need in each

court and the number of authorized/funded positions in each court. The assessed judicial need in

each court compared to the number of authorized and filled positions is shown in Appendix B.

Calculating the statewide need for judgeships is not as simple as subtracting the statewide

number of authorized and funded positions from the statewide assessed judicial need. This is

because the net statewide calculations of judicial need do not accurately identify the court’s need

for new judgeships because judgeships are not allocated at the statewide level but are allocated to

individual trial courts. By way of illustration, the branch’s smallest courts are statutorily

provided with a minimum of two judgeships and are authorized to have at least 0.3 FTE of a

federally funded child support commissioner, for a total of 2.3 FTE judicial officers. This

statutory minimum applies even though the workload need in those courts may translate to a

much smaller number of judge FTEs. As Appendix A shows, under a pure workload analysis,

two of California’s two-judge courts—Alpine and Sierra Counties—would need only 0.2 FTE

judicial officers but have 2.3 FTE authorized positions. These courts thus show a negative

number in the need for new judicial officers. This negative number does not and should not

offset the 36 judicial officers that Riverside County needs to meet its workload-based need.

In other words, the fact that some courts may have more authorized positions than assessed

judicial need under a pure application of the weighted caseload methodology does not take away

from the needs in other courts. As a result, a net calculation of need, adding these positives and

negatives, would provide an artificially low estimate of judicial need in California courts.

Therefore, the actual statewide need for new judgeships is calculated by adding the judicial need

among only the courts that have fewer judgeships than their workload demands. Judicial officer

FTE need—the difference between the assessed judicial need and the authorized judicial

positions—is rounded down to the nearest whole number to arrive at the number of judgeships

needed for each court.4 For example, Tulare County has a judicial officer FTE need of 2.6, which

rounds down to 2 new judgeships needed based on workload.

Based on the 2018 Judicial Needs Assessment, 17 courts need new judgeships, for a total need of

127 judges (Table 2). The need estimate does not include judicial vacancies resulting from

retirements, elevations, or other changes that have not yet been filled.5

4 Per the Judicial Council policy adopted in 2014, an exception is made for courts with judicial FTE need of more

than 0.8, but less than 1. For such courts, their actual judicial officer FTE need is reported without any rounding

down. In 2018, there were no courts with judicial officer FTEs in the range of 0.8 and 1. See Judicial Council of

Cal., Advisory Com. Rep., Judicial Workload Assessment: 2014 Update of Judicial Needs Assessment and Proposed

Revision to Methodology Used to Prioritize New Judgeships (Nov. 7, 2014), www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-

20141212-itemT.pdf.

5 Judicial vacancies are reported monthly at www.courts.ca.gov/15893.htm.

5

Table 2. Need for New Judgeships, by Court

A B C D

Court Authorized and Funded

Judicial Positions

2018 Assessed Judicial

Need

Number of Judgeships

Needed*

AJN − AJP

(B − A)

% Judicial

Need over AJP

(C / A)

Imperial 11.3 12.3 1.0 9

Tehama 4.3 5.4 1.0 23

Merced 12.0 13.2 1.0 8

Sutter 5.3 6.6 1.0 19

Humboldt 8.0 9.4 1.0 13

Shasta 12.0 14.4 2.0 17

Kings 8.6 11.0 2.0 23

Tulare 23.0 25.6 2.0 9

Placer 14.5 17.4 2.0 14

Ventura 33.0 36.3 3.0 9

Stanislaus 24.0 28.2 4.0 17

San Joaquin 33.5 38.6 5.0 15

Fresno 49.0 56.9 7.0 14

Kern 43.0 53.5 10.0 23

Sacramento 72.5 84.3 11.0 15

Riverside 80.0 116.2 36.0 45

San Bernardino 88.0 126.2 38.0 43

127.0

* Rounded down to the nearest whole number.

Status of Conversion of Additional SJO Positions to Family and

Juvenile Assignments

As directed by Government Code section 69614(c)(3), this report also addresses the

implementation of conversions of additional SJO positions (above the 16 authorized per year)

that result in judges being posted to family or juvenile assignments previously held by SJOs.6

Conversions of additional positions were authorized for fiscal year 2011–12 (Gov. Code,

§ 69616), and under this authority four SJO positions were converted to judgeships—one each in

the superior courts of Alameda (June 2012), Los Angeles (January 2012), Orange (January

2012), and Sacramento (March 2012) Counties. The courts that converted those positions have

confirmed that those family and juvenile calendars are now presided over by judges.

6 As authorized by Gov. Code, § 69615(c)(1)(C).

6

Conversions of 10 additional positions have been authorized since fiscal year 2013–14

(Gov. Code, §§ 69617–69619.6), but no additional SJO positions above the 16 authorized per

year have been converted under this authority.

Lack of Adequate Judicial Resources Is a Barrier to Access to Justice

The public’s right to timely access to justice should not be contingent on the resource levels in

the county in which they reside or bring their legal disputes. All Californians deserve to have the

proper number of judicial officers for the workload in their jurisdiction. This report highlights

the critical and ongoing need for new judgeships in the superior courts.

7

Appendix A. Judicial Need Map

8

Appendix B. Assessed Judicial Need Compared to Authorized Positions

A B C D

Court

Authorized and Funded

Judicial Positionsa

2018 Assessed Judicial

Need AJN − AJP

(B − A)

% Judicial Need over

AJP (C / A)b

Riverside 80 116.2 36.2 45 San Bernardino 88 126.2 38.2 43 Kings 8.6 11.0 2.4 28 Tehama 4.33 5.4 1.1 25 Kern 43 53.5 10.5 24 Sutter 5.3 6.6 1.3 24 Shasta 12 14.4 2.4 20 Placer 14.5 17.4 2.9 20 Stanislaus 24 28.2 4.2 18 Humboldt 8 9.4 1.4 17 Sacramento 72.5 84.3 11.8 16 Fresno 49 56.9 7.9 16 San Joaquin 33.5 38.6 5.1 15 Amador 2.3 2.6 0.3 14 Lake 4.7 5.3 0.6 14 San Benito 2.3 2.6 0.3 13 Tulare 23 25.6 2.6 11 Ventura 33 36.3 3.3 10 Merced 12 13.2 1.2 10 Imperial 11.3 12.3 1.0 9 Calaveras 2.3 2.4 0.1 5 Yuba 5.33 5.4 0.1 2 Madera 9.3 9.4 0.1 1 Butte 13 13.0 0.0 0 San Luis Obispo 15 14.6 -0.4 -2 Sonoma 23 22.4 -0.6 -3 Lassen 2.3 2.2 -0.1 -3 Tuolumne 4.75 4.6 -0.2 -3 Contra Costa 42 39.6 -2.4 -6 Orange 144 135.0 -9.0 -6 Solano 23 21.5 -1.5 -6 Alameda 83 77.1 -5.9 -7 Los Angeles 585.25 533.3 -52.0 -9 Santa Barbara 24 21.8 -2.2 -9 Santa Cruz 13.5 12.2 -1.3 -9 Monterey 21.2 19.1 -2.1 -10 Yolo 12.4 10.9 -1.5 -12 Napa 8 7.0 -1.0 -12 El Dorado 9 7.8 -1.2 -13 San Mateo 33 28.6 -4.4 -13 San Diego 154 132.3 -21.7 -14 Mendocino 8.4 7.0 -1.4 -16 Del Norte 2.8 2.3 -0.5 -18 Marin 12.7 10.1 -2.6 -21 San Francisco 55.9 43.8 -12.1 -22 Glenn 2.3 1.8 -0.5 -22 Santa Clara 82 62.2 -19.8 -24 Colusa 2.3 1.5 -0.8 -34

9

A B C D

Court

Authorized and Funded

Judicial Positionsa

2018 Assessed Judicial

Need AJN − AJP

(B − A)

% Judicial Need over

AJP (C / A)b

Siskiyou 5 3.1 -1.9 -37 Trinity 2.3 1.4 -0.9 -39 Nevada 7.6 4.5 -3.1 -40 Inyo 2.3 1.4 -0.9 -41 Plumas 2.3 1.2 -1.1 -50 Mono 2.3 0.9 -1.4 -59 Mariposa 2.3 0.9 -1.4 -61 Modoc 2.3 0.8 -1.5 -66 Sierra 2.3 0.2 -2.1 -90 Alpine 2.3 0.2 -2.1 -93

a Authorized judicial positions include both judgeships and subordinate judicial officer positions. Authorized judgeships consist of those codified in Government Code sections 69580–69611 plus the 50 judgeships that were authorized and funded with SB 56 (Stats. 2006, ch. 390), but not the 48 judgeships that were authorized with AB 159 but never funded.

b Percentages shown here slightly differ from the percentages shown in Table 2, Need for New Judgeships. Percentages in Appendix B are calculated based on the actual differences between AJN and AJP, whereas the percentages in Table 2 are based on rounded-down differences between AJN and AJP, as explained on pages 4–5.